Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 19STCV15991, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15991    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

On February 23, 2023,  (“Counsel”), filed the instant motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendant/Cross-Defendant Ameritek Ventures, Inc. and Shaun Passley (jointly, “Clients”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 as to each Client and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.  

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Clients via mail at Clients’ last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by conversation, recent filings with the Nevada Secretary of State, a skip trace, and confirming with Clients’ current counsel in a pending action in Nevada.

Counsel states that there has been a break down in the attorney-client relationship because Clients have rendered it unreasonably difficult for Counsel to carry out the representation effectively and Clients have breached a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to Counsel relating to the representation of Clients.

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order.  For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

The following upcoming hearing must be listed in the revised proposed order (MC-053) for Ameritek:

-           Additional language for Item 13 for Ameritek only: “A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before this Court. AMERITEK VENTURES, Inc., is ordered to file a substitution of counsel no later than April 17, 2023 and to appear on April 18, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department 26 with its new counsel.  AMERITEK VENTURES, Inc.,’s failure to timely retain new counsel or failure to appear on April 18, 2023 may result in the answer being stricken, and the entry of default and default judgment against AMERITEK VENTURES, Inc. on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and on Jamie Mayeaux, Kenneth Mayeaux, and Clinton Stokes’s cross-complaint.  Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties within 3 days.”

Item 9(b) of each of the proposed orders on Judicial Council form MC-053 shall be corrected to eliminate the language “and (4) dismissal of the Cross-Complaint.”  Neither Shaun Passley nor Ameritek Ventures, Inc. are Cross-Complainants.  Dismissal of Jamie Mayeaux, Kenneth Mayeaux, and Clinton Stokes’s Cross-Complaint will not be one of the consequences of Shaun Passley or Ameritek Ventures, Inc.’s failure to appear at trial.

As to defendant Ameritek Ventures, Inc., the Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.  (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)  “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.  (Id.; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, “[a]n attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 504.)

In light of these authorities, the Court will require that Ameritek Ventures, Inc. timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel no later than April 17, 2023.  The court hereby sets an OSC regarding status of Ameritek Ventures, Inc.’s representation for April 18, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department 26.  Ameritek Ventures, Inc. is ordered to appear on April 18, 2023 with its new counsel, who should be prepared to address counsel’s readiness for trial by the current trial date. 

If Ameritek Ventures, Inc. fails to file a substitution of counsel by April 17, 2023, Ameritek Ventures, Inc. is ordered to appear on April 18, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department 26 and show cause why Ameritek Ventures, Inc.’s answer should not be stricken and why default and default judgment should not be entered against Ameritek Ventures, Inc. on the Third Amended Complaint and on Jamie Mayeaux, Kenneth Mayeaux, and Clinton Stokes’s Cross-Complaint.  Ameritek Ventures, Inc.’s failure to appear on April 18, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department 26 shall be deemed consent to: striking of Ameritek Ventures, Inc.’s answers and entry of default and default judgment against Ameritek Ventures, Inc. on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and Jamie Mayeaux, Kenneth Mayeaux, and Clinton Stokes’s Cross-Complaint.

The Orders are signed and filed, and Counsel is relieved as counsel of record for Defendants/Cross-Defendants Ameritek Ventures, Inc. and Shaun Passley, effective only upon Counsel’s filing of the proofs of service of the signed Orders upon each client Defendant/Cross-Defendant Ameritek Ventures, Inc. and Shaun Passley at each Client’s last known address.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files proofs of service of the signed orders as to both Defendant/Cross-Defendant Ameritek Ventures, Inc. and Shaun Passley.  Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including Defendant/Cross-Defendant Ameritek Ventures, Inc. and Shaun Passley, and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

DATED: March 16, 2023                                           ___________________________

                                                                        Elaine Lu

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court